Volume XL Thursday Province of Newfoundland FORTIETH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND First Session VERBATIM REPORT {Hansard} _ Speaker: Honourable Patrick McNicholas No. 41 27 June 1985

The House met at 3:00 p.m. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! I think this may be just as good a time as another to qeal with the point of order that was raised by the han. member for St. John's North (Mr. J. Carter) on Tuesday. It was in connection with remarks made by the han. member for Fortune - Hermitage (Mr. Simmons) on Friday. I have had a chance to check Hansard and I refer you to Page 2009, the han. member for St. John's North got up on a point of order. The han. member for Fortune - Hermitage made the comment, "Mr. Speaker, do your job".

Now later on the han. member made a further comment, "A cohort, that is al"l he is". I am not quite sure who that comment was referring to, so I will ignore that one. But later on the han. member made the comment, "Mr. Speaker, do your job this time". Now I do not consider any of these comments themselves terribly serious but the implication that the Chair should be questioned by any member, either sitting down or standing in his place, is not in order. I find it offensive and I would ask the han. member if he would withdraw these remarks. The han. member for Fortune Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Mr.

Speaker, completely. would need I share your view Apart from that I the guidance of the Chair because I am not sure what it is I am supposed to withdraw. Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness I am not sure what it is I am supposed to withdraw. If I am withdrawing any inference to the Chair, I withdraw that. But apart from that I quite agree with the L2157 June 27, 1985 Vol XL sentiments expressed. that you Oral Questions MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): have The han. member for Fortune Hermitage. c. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Dawe).

It is in reference to the Federal - P~ovincial Transportation Agreement recently signed and in particular the selections of roads with respect to secondary road upgrading. I wonder would the minister indicate to the House whether the Province, the provincial government, had full input into those particular decisions and, in particular, whether the provincial government concurred in the actual secondary roads that were selected for upgrading over the next seven years? MR. SPEAKER: The han. Minister of Transportation. MR. DAWE: Mr.

Speaker, since I have become Transportation Minister I have been involved in many negotiations with the federal government and others with regards to trying to secure for the Province adequate transportation agreements and cost- sharing programmes. There was one for the TCH, a three year agreement. There was an agreement that involved secondary roads under a programme called SRCPP at the time. Then a proposal was put forward to the federal government that had essentially three prongs to it: There was a portion that primarily dealt with the No. 41 R2157

Trans-Labrador Highway, that primarily dealt a portion with the Trans-Canada . Highway, and a portion that primarily dealt with secondary roads. In all of the process of negotiations there is a certain amount of give and take in all these programmes that we have been dealing with. What we try to do, Mr. Speaker, on ali these occasions is solicit the best deal and acquire the best deal for the Province that we can.

I think we have been able to accomplish · this in the two previous agreements, and more particularly in this agreement where we have signed the largest single highways agreement in the Province's history. MR. SIMMONS : Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicho la s): The hon. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMM ONS : I thank the minister. But specifically to the question, did the Provincial Government concur in the selection of those particular secondary roads, the ones that have been designated for upgrading? MR. DAWE: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicho la s): The hon. the Minister of Transportation. MR.

DAWE: In our proposal for secondary roads we listed a great number of secondary roads in the Province for possible funding under a cost-shared agreement. And any funding that we can gather from the federal government that would L2158 June 27, 1985 Vol XL help this Province in developing our road network and our transportation networ~, we are more than willing to put in our share and co-operate fully. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: In the previous answer the minister talked about getting the best deal he could. Do we infer from that, Mr.

Speaker, that putting the lion's share of the money for secondary roads into the Southern Avalon was the price that the Province paid, that it had to trade off the need for other road improvements in the interest of getting that money? Was that the kind of trade off that was involved? Did Mr. Crosbie have him across a barrel such that he had to agree with the upgrading of those particular roads o.r not get a deal, the deal he ta~ked about earlier? MR. DAWE: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicho la s): The hon. the Minister of Transportation. MR. DAWE: Mr.

Speaker, you would think by the comments from the hon. member that we are forgetting the primary third prong of our proposal to the federal government over the past two and a half years, that is the major secondary road component, and indeed we have not, and we are pursuing that avenue. It just so happens that this particular portion, I might point No. 41 R2158

5 out to the hon. member as well, is a very small part of the total agreement on secondary roads. A portion of a little over $2 million: is going into completion of the L'Anse au Meadows road on the Great Northern Peninsula, a road that leads to a very significant International Heritage site, whose opening ceremonies the hon. member and myself had the privilege of attending, and we had a large discussion at that time of the importance of upgrading and paving the road to that site.

Part of this agreement sees that that particular_ work is being completed~ Certainly the roads in the Southern Avalon, the Burgee Road, roads on the Northern Peninsula, roads on the South Coast of the Province and roads everywhere require our attention and we will be doing them in due course. I would just like to point out that we will be continuing to pursue a cost-shared arrangement for other secondary roads in the Province but in light of the finances that were available at this point in time in the past couple of months we did secure the best deal possible for the Province. MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the member Twillingate. MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, my same minister, Transportation question is to the Minister (Mr. Dawe). for the of It concerns statements coming out of a meeting that was held in St. John's on Tuesday of the Canada Safety Council representatives dealing with school buses. It was implied at the meeting, Mr.

Speaker, by a member of the L2159 June 27, 1985 Vol XL Newfoundland Constabulary that because a lot of these buses - I think there are about 1,200 altogether, 1,000 owned by private contractors - were being brought in from the Mainland, bought as used buses, that maybe their condition was not safe for transporting children. In fact, the Constabulary member did imply that these buses were not safe.

I wonder can the Minister of Transportation tell the House what precautions are taken, what inspections if any are carried out by his department to ensure that these buses, that will transport in the run of a year about 85,000 children, are safe? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation. MR. DAWE: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Education (Mr. Hearn), the former Minister of Education, now Minister of Justice (Ms Verge) and I have been discussing this particular issue now for some time, have had numerous discussions relative to school bus safety. As a matter of fact, Mr.

Speaker, as part of that conference that was held on the weekend, a report was made by Transport Canada, which has done a lot of work relative to school bus safety and the possible inclusion in school buses of seat belts and various testing procedures that have gone on and are continuing to go on, to see whether in fact school buses can be made safer than they are. I would just like to point out, though, Mr. Speaker, and it came out in that conference as well, that school buses are among the safest means of transportation in the country and they have a very, very low incidence of accident either for No. 41 R2159

mechanical reasons or for other violations that may or may not occur on the highway system. They are a very safe means of transportation. That is not to say we cannot make the system safer. We do have a regular system of inspection on school buses, a regular process that the school bus operators have to have their buses inspected and a very intense inspection it is as well, Mr. Speaker. This is ongoing.

We will be attempting to improve that situation but, as I pointed out earlier, the operation and maintenance of the school buses in the Province is of a very high standard and we plan to continue with making sure that high standard is continued on into the future. MR. W. CAR TER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR •. SPEAKER (McNicholas): A supplementary, the han. member for Twillingate. MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister, I think these school buses are safe.

But statements such as that made by an official of the Newfoundland Constabulary would certainly have doubts placed in the minds of parents whose children use these buses. Can the minister tell the House what method of inspections, how many per year, for example, take place? Is he satisfied as Minister of the Department of Transportation that these buses are inspected frequently enough, that even though they are brought in from the mainland and billed as used . buses they are sufficiently inspected to ensure their safety? MR. SPEAKER : The han. Minister of L2160 June 27 , 1985 Vol XL Transportation. MR. DAWE: Mr.

Speaker, I do not know as a blanket statement if I am 'satisfied.' As I indicated, I am certain there are other things you can do and improvements that you can make. We are looking at this continuously, both through the Department of Education and their School Bus Division and our own Department of Transportation which looks after taking care of the inspections. I stand to be corrected and I will check, but my understanding is that it is a three times a year inspection. It may be four but I will check on that.

But it is a thorough inspection where the buses have to be shut down essentially for about a ten hour inspection. They are in garages and the whole mechanical system of the bus is gone through from top to bottom by certified mechanics. This occurs, depending on where you are in the Province, in local garages, in major facilities, garages that are authorized to carry out these kinds of inspections by my department. At the present time the inspections that are ongoing are as adequate as they can be given the circumstances and the geography of the Province.

I am certain there are areas where the inspection programme can be improved and beefed up somewhat and those are areas that we are looking at and if we can do that we certainly will be doing it. MR. W. CARTER: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary. MR. W. CARTER: No. 41 R2160

.. In view of the fact that the statement made at the conference came from a member of the Newfoundland Constabulary, speaking I presume in behalf of that force, would the Minister of Justice ( Ms Verge) , then, Mr.

Speaker, maybe cause an investigation to be undertaken to find out if in fact Constable Friddle, the representative, had any basis _for the concerns expressed by him at that meeting, statements that would certainly cause a lot of ~larm in minds of people? .Would she undertake to maybe check with the Constabulary to find out if they maybe know something that the Minister of Transportation does not know? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. Minister of Justice. MS VERGE: Mr.

Speaker, I assure all bon. members in this House that I will work towards maximizing school bus safety in this Province, that I will ensure that the personnel of the Justice Department and the members of our police forces continue to co-operate with officials of the Transportation Department, the Education Department and the school boards around the Province. There have been considerable strides made in improving school bus safety in recent years but, as the Minister of Transportation just said, undoubtedly there are more improvements that we can make and we will work to that end. MR.

SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. member for Windsor-Buchans. MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for the Petroleum Directorate. At last L2161 June 27, 1985 Vol XL night's meeting there appeared to be some confusion existing in the Mobil EIS hearings. People wanted in 'formation that Mobil officials side-stepped, or would not deal with, claiming that such questions or information was specific or related to the development plan and not the EIS. Somehow the impression was created, or things said that gave rise to the possibility that Mobil's development plan would not be made public.

And my question, Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister is what is the government's position? Will Mobil devel9pment plan be public with allowance made public hearings the same as EIS is now subject to? MR. SPEAKER: the made for the The hon. President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr.

Speaker, first of all I want to say, as a general comment to the bon. gentleman's question, that I think it is advisable and in the best interests of the environmental impact process that as few statements be made by government with respect to it as possible because of the fact that the panel will report to both orders of government, and both orders of government will deal with it at that time. And in between time I think it would have an adverse effect on this process that we have set up, and set up very carefully, for government to be making comments even out of matters that arise from the hearings themselves.

But with respect specifically to the hon. gentleman's question, quite obviously the development plan is to be made public, quite obviously there are going to be hearings on the development plan, anq I think quite obviously, as the hon. No. 41 R2161

gentleman must understand and know, this is really part of the process that we are into at the present time. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hen. member for Windsor-Buchans. MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, we have some very recent examples of towns whose economy was based solely and totally on a single industry going through a boom and bust scenario. Now, will the government be giving Mobil instructions to develop a discontinuance plan so as to lessen the impact of the boom and bust syndrome that will surely follow the development and production stages of an offshore industry? MR. SPEAKER: The hen.

President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: All of that will be considered in the development plan and it will be considered by both orders of government. Obviously what the hen. gentleman is talking about is a programme which would be desirable in ideal circumstances, but unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world. But the hen. gentleman can take it for granted that both orders of government will do their best to protect to the optimum the interests of the people of the Province. MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hen. Windsor-Buchans. MR.

FLIGHT: Mr. the Speaker, the timetable for member for time frame and these hearings L2162 June 27, 1985 Vol XL that we are undergoing new was 'set by the government and government policy questions were specifically left out of the panel's mandate. The longer the hearings go on the more the accusation is being spread around that the hearings are a charade, because people are not getting the information they want, specific information with regards to the economic and social impact of the development ~n their community or their area.

So will the minister undertake to assure the House that when the development plan is presente~ to the public that ample time will be given for people to determine exactly what impact the development of the offshore will have on the communities affected in this Province? Will enough time frame be allowed for that because there is not now? MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hen. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, because the hen. gentleman says it is a charadedoes not mean it is a fact endorsed by Holy Writ. A Flight from Windsor - Buchans saying it is a charade does not make it a charade.

That it not true. What we have done is very, very carefully provided for an environmental hearing process. A statement was made and this Province has been very much involved in it. As the hen. gentleman knows, there was originally one statement that was provided to which this government took issue. As a result of the powers that we have obtained under the Atlantic Accord a new statement was prepared which is presently being considered and assessed and I hope it is going to be able to be considered and assessed, Mr. Speaker, in a No. 41 R2162

• I measured interests Province. manner of the for the people of best this I do not think that the statements made by the han. gentleman or the types of questions that he asks benefit that process at all. I mean, what we are into> I hope, is a very posi tiy-e process. We have ordered an environmental impact statement to be filed. It was prepared, I believe, at a cost ·of approximately $2 million. We appointed prominent Newfoundlanders to that particular panel.

We are in the process of conducting hearings throughout the Province now to disseminate information to explain what is in the environmental impact statement. We have ordered and caused officials of Mobile to be there at those hearings so Newfoundlanders can examine them and get the information accordingly. Eventually, as the Summer progresses, there is going to be a certain position taken by Mobile with respect to the proposed mode of development and then there will be hearings on it.

So we have done everything we possibly can, and we will continue in the future to foster a positive exercise through the environmental impact process. As I say, the han. gentleman is now asking me questions with respect to it. I know some of the gentlemen on the other side -must cringe when they hear him ask the questions because they realize, if this is to be a positive exercise at all, the government should not be engaged in answering questions in the House with respect to matters that came up in the hearings and are under consideration by the panel.

We will be considering the report of the panel, which is the reason L2163 June 27, 1985 Vol XL for the process, Mr. Speaker, and we will be making our position accordingly. In the meantime, we believe in democracy and we are going to give free rein to the people of this Province to come in, find out all the information and make their positions known. When we get the sum total of the opinion of the people of Newfoundland, then we will act accordingly in a measured, responsible way for the benefit of all of the people in the Prqvince. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The han. the member for Fogo.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout). It concerns a new political consulting firm called Government Consultants International, which is owned, I understand, by a former Newfoundland Premier, Frank Moores, who is, of course, a political buddy of Mr. Mulroney, and Mr. Gerald Doucette, who also, I understand, has close connections with the Prime Minister, at least through his brother, and I understand that this company has recently been going around to federal department officials directly, according to an

article in today's Globe and Mail, and to the federal Minister of Fisheries (!-ir. Fraser) , to get regulations changed for their clients, in this case fishermen, for a price. Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a form of influence peddling. Is the minister aware of the existence of this company? Would he confirm or deny whether this company has been carrying on any No. 41 R2163

of those types of actions in Newfoundland, using its influence to get . favours, perhaps, for its own people? Has it been charging or gaining access to the federal minister for fishing companies, or, indeed, fishermen in this Province at a price? MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker. MR • SPEAKER : The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker ·,. I cannot answer for what any particular consultant firm may or may not be doing, or trying to sell their business to · the federal Minister of Fisheries or any other minister for that matter.

I can only say to the hon. gentleman that as the Provincial Minister of Fisheries I know nothing about the firm and neither have I had any business to do with them. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr.

Speaker, as I have pointed out to the minsi ter, and I am sure he is aware of this, it is obviously a form of influence peddling, and while I do not know of any case where the minister has had anything to do with that kind of company, it is obviously a way of using your political connections to get access to a group of people, and charging people, perhaps, who are least able to pay. I would like to ask the minister if he condones this type of action and if, indeed, it comes up in Newfoundland, will we see - L2164 June 27, 1985 Vol XL MR. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL : I realize the hon. gentleman is reading from prepared notes as to his questions, but it does not follow the sequence of the answer. The hon. the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout) said he knew nothing about it, and now the member is asking whether he condones it. Now, how can the Minister of Fisheries condone anything if he knows nothing about it? He says he knows nothing about it, number one, and, number two, Mr. Speaker, he is asking a question relating to another jurisdiction, that is the federal Government of Canada.

He can ask a member of the Rat Pack to ask the question, if he wishes to, since it is in the Rat Pack's jurisdiction. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): To that point of order, the hen. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: I do not want to waste any more time in Question Period, as the hen. member is doing. It is obviously related to the Newfoundland fishery. That is complete and utter nonsense. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, I do not think it was a point of order. Maybe the hen. member has another question. MR. TULK: No. 41 R2164

Mr. Speaker, this question if for the Minister of Fisheries. Would he investigate to see if indeed any of this type of thing is going on in Newfoundland? Will he ask his federal counterpart in Ottawa to see that indeed it does not happen, as it happened in this case in Nova Scotia? It ~s a very simple question. ~ PREMIER PECKFORD: (Inaudible) Newfoundland. representing MR. TULK: Representing Newfoundland! I know, 'Brian', you are touchy. PREMIER PECKFORD: I am not touchy at all about it. It has nothing to do with me. MR. TULK: That is what I am saying. That is why I am asking him to see. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, if they want -an answer, I will try to give it to them. If not, we can go on to the next question. MR. TULK: (Inaudible) give the Premier a chance. MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) Premier involved. PREMIER PECKFORD: You asked me for a job. You asked me for a job. MR. FLIGHT: That is a lie. L2165 June 27, 1985 Vol XL MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! A point of order, the hon. the member for Fogo. MR.

TULK: The Minister of Fisheries is obviously attempting to answer the question, as he should, and he is being interrupted by his own Premier. Could you call the Premier to order so that the minister can answer the question? MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): To that point of order, there seem to be interruptions from many quarters. I would ask the hon. minister if he would answer the questions, and I ask _for silence. The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr.

Speaker, I think I have already answered the question in essence, in that I said to the hon. gentleman I know nothing about this firm or any business they may be doing with other peop~e. They are not doing any busines~; with me, or the Department of Fisheries, provincially, that I am aware of. Do I condone one's selling one's expertise? That is something for individuals to make up their mind about. Whether they want to engage me or the hon. gentlemen or whatever, I mean, I cannot do much about that. There are consulting firms all over the place. So really I do not see the relevance of the question to me.

I have had nothing to do with that particular company, I do not even know they exist, Mr. Speaker, from my own personal knowledge. No. 41 R2165

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: The federal Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Fraser) obviously does know that this company exists. MR. FLIGHT: I cannot believe the Premier would tell a lie like that. MR. TULK: I am asking the minister will he investigate to see if this company has done any of this in Newfoundland? And if indeed he finds out it has, will he ask the federal minister to ignore that company as it relates to the Newfoundland fishery? SOME HON. MEMBERS: What for? What for? MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR.

TULK: Are you political influence? going buddies MR. SPEAKE R: Order, please! MR. RIDEOUT: to let peddle your their The fact of the matter is that that hon. gentleman is a member of the House just as I am or as any other member is. If he has a problem, if he has any concerns about how a particular business operates - is alleged to operate, by the way, I do not even know if they exist, nobody has made a complaint to me - if I have any complaints from any individual then I will act on them. L2166 June 27, 1985 Vol XL MR. TULK: Do you not read The Globe and Mail? MR. RIDEOUT: Mr.

Speaker, I have not even had time to look at The Globe and Mail yet today. So if the hon. gentleman has any information, any proof, . anything of any substance, then I will be glad to have it. But if it is just political puffery in the House, then there is not much I can do about it. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKE R (McNicholas): The hon. the member for Bonavista North. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, that is just another ploy to cut in on my time. It is getting near the end of the question period and I have a very important question.

I want to ask the Minister of Mines and Energy and Housing (Mr. Dinn) a question related to RRRAP, the Rural Rehabilitation Assistance Programme, which is a misnomer, Mr. Speaker. I do not know how our Canadian people are expected to know what these initials stand for. It is a programme designed to help rural Newfoundlanders to repair, renovate, and to bring about general improvements to their homes, to make them safe to live in. That is what the programme is all about.

It gives monies up to $25,000 with amounts forgivable, it gives loans up to $25,000 with as much as $5,000 forgivable, \IThich is a very important programme for rural Newfoundland. No. 41 R2166

I raised in the House the other day that the federal government had cut this programme nationally by 20 per cent and by 45 per cent to this Province. I wonder if the minister has looked into this, to verify th~se figures? Would he not admit that under previous levels of funding this programme did not come close to meeting the needs of rural Newfoundland and Labrador? MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. DINN: Mr.

Speaker, the Rural RRAP programme, or RRRAP as it is called, the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Programme, was cut to the Province's housing arm this year by about 25 per cent, which is what it was cut nationally, 25 per cent not 20 per cent. I have been trying to determine what the cuts are with respect to delivery agents other than the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, some major municipalities and some other non-profit groups, but I have not had that compiled yet. I am in the process of getting that done and, when I do, I will inform the hon. member of what the actual figure is. MR.

SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the member for Bonavista North. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister realizes that he is probably playing around with the figures that indeed the actual cut to Newfoundland will be 45 per cent. L2167 June 27, 1985 Vol XL Now, in addition to these cuts, can the minister clarify whether there will be . any layoffs of people working with RRAP throughout Newfoundland, whether these cutbacks will result in layoffs of employees? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. t~e Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. DINN: Mr.

Speaker, in the delivery of RRAP specifically in this Province, there may be a transfer of personnel. In other words, where there is a RRAP programme, for example, on the West Coast, and there are not enough applications in that area to justify several RRAP officers, or one RRAP officer, he might be transferred now or a position might be made available in the Fortune-Hermitage area, which is a new RRAP area being brought in this year.

So we are attempting to do a rationalization of the numbers of people we will require in the Province to deliver the housing programmes that are operated or administered by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation; and I understand that since some of these things will be transferred to the Province in the new global agreement that we hope to sign within the next week or two, that CMHC is going through the same process. MR. LUSH: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): A final supplementary, the hon. the member for Bonavista North. MR. LUSH: Mr.

Speaker, the minister knows very well that these cutbacks for RRAP are going to have a negative No. 41 R2167

impact on rural Newfoundland in three areas: One, in terms of improvement to the homes of people who live in rural Newfoundland, we are not going to be able to take care of that: secondly, we are not going to have the infusion of funds in these areas that would be generated as a result of construction, and we are now going to lose the funds for the repairs to these homes; and we are going to have layoffs. These three areas are going to have a very negative effect on rural Newfoundland. Would the minister now stand in his place and admit the negative effect of the cutbacks to this programme?

And will he inform the House what representation he has made to Ottawa to ensure that this programme is maintained? Mr. Speaker, certainly we do not expect any extra funding. We can do with it, as the minister realizes, because under previous levels of funding we have not met the needs of rural Newfoundland. But has he made any representation in terms of maintaining the status quo, of maintaining the same levels of funding that we had last year, instead of this vicious cutback? SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. DINN: Mr.

Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. With respect to funding by the federal government under the next global agreement, the hon. member can be. assured that I will not put up with cuts in the overall context. Because we have priorities in this Province, for example, with L2168 June 27, 1985 Vol XL respect to chronic care and senior citizens, so we have priorities that are set out, and I can assure the hon • meriiber that in the next global agreement that we intend to sign, we will get more money from the federal government in that new global agreement than we got from the previous administration.

Not only that, we will have . a little more control over where those housing dollars will be spent, because they believe that the provinces should have input into these programmes. So I give this commitment to the hon. gentleman, that I will not sign a global agreement with the federal government unless we get more money than we got in the last global agreement. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! The time for Oral Questions has now elapsed. Presenting Reports by Standing and.Special Committees MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the member for Bellevue. MR. CALLAN: Mr.

Speaker, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee it is my duty and pleasure to Table the report of the Public Accounts Committee for the financial year ended March 31, 1983. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given No. 41 R2168

MR. SIMMS: Mr . Speaker. MR . SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, members will recall yesterday I gave an obligation to the member for Gander (Mr. Baker) to table various responses to questions related to the spray programme, some technical questions and all of that, and I wish to Table that information. Also, if I might take the opportunity to advise members that the weather apparently is not looking all that good so it may be tomorrow morning now before we begin the budworm · spray programme.

At that time we will be spraying two blocks which are the environmental blocks, Weir's Pond area North of Gander off Carmanville road, close to the han. member for Fogo (Mr. Tulk). I would also like to advise members, for their information, that the telephone line we made available and publicized yesterday, 256-7451, for the media's purpose, will be manned from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., day in and day out, until the programme is over. If we get perfect weather, the spruce budworm spray programme will be completed in three to four days.

If the weather is not good, then it might take eight to ten days and if members opposite continue to interfere it might take even longer than that, who knows. Mr. Speaker, I would like to Table a lot of detailed information here about the wind speed for spraying, precautions to be taken when mixing insecticides, how many L2169 June 27, 1985 Vol XL loaders are required, how many hours an experienced pilot sliould have in the small aircraft and nci insecticides can be used in areas where salmon enhancement programmes are going on, i ~ e, the Noel Pond area. Anyway, Mr.

Speaker, there is all kinds of information here. .. More specifically, I hope the media go through it and will get a better chance to understand it. I will have copies made available to the media immediately. MR. FLIGHT: What about the Grand Falls water supply? MR. SIMMS: Every precaution ·will be taken to protect the Grand Falls water supply. There is nothing to worry about. Petitions MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The han. the member for Burin Placentia West. MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents.

The petition states: "We, the undersigned, strongly oppose the allowing of any Morgentaler-style abortion clinics to be established and operated in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.n Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Health (Dr. Twomey) has dealt with this some time ago. He has certainly put forth the position of the Newfoundland No. 41 R2169

government as it relates 'to the operation of such clinics in this Province. His position and the position of the Newfoundland government I think quite clearly states that they are opposed to any type of Morgentaler clinics in this Province. I am sure that that will please the people who signed this petition. Mr. Speaker, I lay this petition on the Table of the House and add my support to it. MR. W. CARTER : Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the meir..ber for Twillingate. MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I support the prayer of that petition.

I think most thinking Newfoundlanders will agree that the Morgentaler-type operation should not be allowed in this Province. I would hope that the Minister of Health (Dr. Twomey) and his colleague, the Minister of Justice (Ms Verge} would take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that Dr. Morgentaler will never rear his head in this Province. I think it is a disgrace what is happening and I think to allow that sort of an operation in our Province is beneath most Newfoundlanders.

I would certainly ask the Minister of Health to take whatever steps are necessary because I understand these people have an insidious way of worming their way in through one means or another. And I would certainly be against any such move in that respect. DR. TWOMEY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): L2170 June 27, 1985 Vol XL The hon. the Minister of Health. DR. TWOMEY I too, as Minister of Health, stand and support this petition. As this hon. House is aware, Dr.

Morgentaler did request earlier this year that I, and the department, and the government, give permission for the opening of a free-standing abortion clinic anywhere in this Province. After careful deliberation, this request was rejected. We told him in very plain language that we were adhering to the recommendations of 251 and 252 of the Criminal Code. We do not have the right and privilege to do anything more than, first ask for permission, ask for documentation of the decision of an Abortion Committee, or ask for a report from the doctor who performs it.

The whole responsibility rests for therapeutic abortions under the Criminal Code with the Therapeutic Abortion Board of the hospital that performs it. That reque~t was obviously rejected and I rlo not think I can add any more to it. Orde rs of the Day MR. MARSHALL: Order 5, Bill No. 15. Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service (Collective Bargaining) Act, 1973". (Bill No. 15) MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. North. MR. LUSH: No. 41 member for Bonavista R2170

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just by the way of recapitulating and summarizing the remarks that I was making yesterday with respect Bill 15, I had said,:Mr. Speaker, that this bill represents no substantive or, indeed, substantial concessions to public service employees or to their bargaining units. It represents no major reforms. It is simply an attempt to soften and ameliorate some of the harsh and offensive measures which were contained in that most offensive bill, Bill 59. I am sure all government members members must be ashamed to utter these words in Bill 59. Mr.

Speaker, this bill does nothing to improve the collective bargaining process with respect to public service employees. It does nothing to improve that system. Bill 59 put the collective bargaining process of this Province clearly under the control of government and that is where it sits today. Government have the controlling hand in respect of negotiating and bargaining 'ofith their employees and this bill does nothing at all to correct that grave injustice with respect to collective bargaining in the Province. So it does nothing to change the collective bargaining process.

Clearly, government still has the upper hand. In essence, Mr. Speaker, the bill addressed two issues. It was to determine those bargaining units in which their employees could not be classified to be performing essential services. It just identified those employees and their bargaining units who could not be classified to be performing essential services or bargaining units whose workers could not be L2171 June 27, 1985 Vol XL classified employees. did. The bargaining could not as essential That is what this bill bill listed those units where be classified workers to be performing essential services.

I was saying yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the significance of the bill or the insignificance of the bill is demonstrated and reflected in the units that were listed. These bargaining units, Mr. Speaker, never presented a problem with respect to essential services. Essential services never carne up with these units. So what we have is the government plucking out units that never carne into question with respect to essential services. They were never listed. They were never called upon to list essential services or to be essential employees in these units.

Really, we are not solving any problem because there was never a problem. I think the minister will agree, there was never a problem with these bargaining units that the minister lists here today. To demonstrate how weak this measure is, I identified some of the bargaining units that we talked about that the minister has listed here, public libraries for example. You know, I am sure that most people realize that that is not an essential service, though we all like to go to libraries and we all like to read. But if we do not get in today, or we do not get in next week, none of us are going to die because of it.

By · the listing of these bargaining units, the bill shows how far we have sunk in terms of labour relations in the Province over the past couple of years. Again, I feeble, a government No. 41 reiterate, very weak to try and it is a attempt by soften and R2171

try to amelio_::- _ate the harsh measures of Bill 59. It is a small step, Mr. Speaker, in the right direction but I have said that government still have the controlling hand because out of 12,000 public service employees, the government still have the right to declare 10,000 as services, workers may as essential performing essential 10,000 out of 12,000 still be declared employees. Mr.

Speaker, we know that there are areas where essential employees have to be declared and we are certainly not disagreeing with that aspect of the bill, with respect to health service institutions, nursing care homes and that kind of thing. But they do not make up the 10,000 workers in this Province who may be declared as essential employees. And once, Mr . Speaker, a person is declared as an essential employee, that person has no more protection. There is no protection under the law for a person who is declared to be an essential employee. There is no protection under the law for that person.

That clearly puts the government in the driver 1 s seat. That clearly puts them in control of the collective bargaining process. With respect to the other part of the bill - I said that it dealt with two issues, one was the designation of essential employees - the second part of the bill just firms up and strengthens the government 1 s hand with respect to strikes in those areas, in health service institutions. It just firms up the procedure for strike. It does not make it very easy. Maybe we can go along with that, maybe strikes should not be L2172 June 27, 1985 Vol XL easy in these kinds of institutions.

But just in case, Mr. Speaker, the government is giving the impression that it is making the strike easy, it is not making it easy. Indeed, it is firming the procedure up, making it a little more rigid, making it a little more stringent so that we just cannot call a strike at any time in these institutions. What we have is thirty-seven days, I think - and the minister can correct me if I am wrong - it means that no institution can call a strike under thirty-seven days. There is seven days notice, and then it is my understanding that the strike takes effect after the seven days notice.

Now maybe it does take . effect when the date is named within the seven days, but, I believe, a lot of the union people understand that they cannot declare the strike until after that seven days and thirty days after that, so it becomes thirty-seven days, that is their understanding. If the seven days is included in the thirty then the minister can clarify that. Then, of course, if for whatever reason in that seven day notice the strike cannot be declared, they have to wait another month. And do they not have again to give another seven days notice?

So it seems to be a cycle of thirty-seven days, but the minister could clarify that, that need not be so. It could be a misinterpretation. Mr. Speaker, having said that, we support he bill because we do believe it is a step in the right direction. At least 2,000 workers out of 12,000 still have collective bargaining rights. They cannot be declared to be essential employees. So we thank God for No. 41 R2172

tl1 that small measure, that 2,000 out of 12,000, one-sixth of the public service employees have the full rights to collective bargaining and will not . be designated as' essential employees. We would like to see the figure larger, we think, to be rational, Mr. Speaker, and so that we are understood, we think that with respect to our health · service institutions there certainly have to be some steps taken in this direction so that are people are given proper care in the nursing homes and that kind of thing.

As I have said before, they certainly do not represent 10,000 employees that still can be declared to be essential employees. We think it is a small step, ever so small, and any improvements we see made within the labour force in Newfoundland, any situation that improves labour relations, then we have to go along with it. We think it is a small measure, we think it is a very, very minute measure, but, even with that, we support the bill and hope that it does go some distance in terms of helping labour relations in this Province.

As I have indicated before, I do not expect the bargaining units to be out beating their chests and marching up and down the streets in St. John's and Grand Falls and Corner Brook over this measure today. At least some of them will see it as an improvement and we hope that we will move on from there.

Whereas we have one small step today, maybe a year from now the minister will be bold enough, Mr. Speaker, and have courage enough to make a giant step. Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! L2173 June 27, 1985 Vol XL MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Greening): The hon. member for Windsor Buchans. MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak just for a moment on this amendment and the reason I do is because I want to support totally the comments made by the member for Bonavista North (Mr. Lush).

I do not know if there is such a thinq as de-legislating but it looks like the minister is bringing in bills to de-legislate legislation that he authored as th~ deputy minister for ten or twelve years, legislation that over the years reduced the labour movement in this Province to tears, demoralized the labour movement, and set up the deplorable labour relations we have in this Province today. So, Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, there is more legislation needed. We need legislation that takes away the retroactivity from Bill 37. Mr. Speaker, the member for Bonavista North (Mr.

Lush) on several occasions talked about 10,000. This legislation will mean that 10,000 of the 12,000 members of NAPE will still be considered essential employees. The minister keeps shaking his head that that is not true. MR. BLANCHARD: I am not given to unmannerly interruptions like you. MR. FLIGHT: Would the minister care to repeat what he just said? SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. 41 R2173

Oh, oh! MR. FLI GHT: The minister was not getting up or getting down, he was shaking his head one way or the other every time the memper alluded to the fact that 10,000 would still be in bonds. The member Peach) will for tell Carbonear us about (Mr. the · pediatric war in Carbonear when he stands up shortly, how he ignored the wishes and the needs of his people, and how he tried to wiggle out of it on Provincial ~f~airs. Maybe the minister should go back to thi's seat and make a speech on behalf of his constituents in Carbonear. MR. PEACH: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER (Greening): The hon. member for Carbonear. MR. PEACH: The bon. member for Windsor Buchans (Mr. Flight), Mr. Speaker, is misleading the House when making reference to my comments and involvement with regard to the proposed closure, and it is the proposed closure of the pediatric ward in the Carbonear hospital. I have been working on that matter with two other MHAs on this side of the House and, as a matter of fact, I met with his own colleague from Port de Grave (Mr. Efford) several weeks ago and the matter is being worked on.

To say that I hid away from it is not a correct statement, Sir, and I will continue to work on it during the next few days to see that the matter is resolved. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order. L2174 June 27, 1985 Vol XL MR. SPEAKER (Greening ): To that point of order, the hon. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Carbonear (Mr. Peach) is quite sensitive on this issue, but there is no point of order whatsoever.

It is not our fault if his constituents call us looking for instructions on how to make effigies that look like the member for Carbonear, so they can hang them. It is not my fault, or our fault, at all. There is no point of order before the Chair, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKE R: To that point of order, there is no point of order. The bon. the member for Windsor - Buchans. MR. FL IGHT : Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about me being unmannerly simply because, I guess, I take

part in cut and thrust across this House. Mr. Speaker, if it is unmannerly for me to indicate how I feel about something that is said in this House, in keeping with his position, and in keeping with his dream and the way he wants to impress ·the people of Newfoundland that he is going to improve labour relations in this Province, it surely must have seemed unmannerly when he took it upon himself to publicly call the employers' representative in this Province a Johnny- come-lately, and suggest that he is irrelevant to the process, because he made a statement on legislation. To me, that appears to be just as unmannerly as a member in this House taking

part in debate across the House. The minister could No. 41 R2174

have arisen if he wanted to, and he will have a chance in a few minutes, to back up the shaking of his head every time the member for Bonavista North (Mr. Lush) indicated that only 2,000 employees of NAPE will be affected by this legislation. Mr. Speaker, there point I wanted to is another make. The minister referred on four or five occasions to the employees of the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation, and he indicated that they were not considered essential services.

In light of the fact · that in as far as the general public can determine from statement made that we may be looking at a strike by the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation employees, I wonder was the minister floating a balloon? Was there a message going out there to the employees of the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation that they are not essential? They are ready to go on strike. They are not essential. Maybe that is the message going out to those employees. And maybe the minister will enlighten us as to exactly what the status of that situation is when he stands up. And what happens, Mr.

Speaker, to, as we understand it, all the beer - MR. BLANCHARD : That question would be better asked in Question Period. MR. SIMMONS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Greening): A point of order, the han. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: My colleague is making some very pertinent comments on the bill. The minister, I understand, may be L2175 June 27, 1985 Vol XL a little upset because of the kinds of comments being made, and that is fair, but he should know the rules of the House. He tells my colleague n9w, in an undertone, that he should ask the question during Question Period.

I say to the minister that the House rules prevent my colleague from asking questions which relate to this bill. This is the proper time to ask the questions. The minister might not like the fact that he is asking questions, but we are going to ask the questions and, when we get some answers, then we can let this legislation go through. DR. COLLINS: To that point of Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: order, Mr. To the point of order, the han. the Minister of Finance. DR.

COLLINS: I suppose it is pointless, once again, to point out that that sort of thing is not a point of order, it is just an unwarranted interruption into the rather garbled speech that the han. member opposite was making. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, there is not point of order. The han. the member for Windsor - Buchans. MR. FLIGHT: I know members opposite want to be out of here this evening, but since my speech is garbled, Mr. Speaker, I think I will take the time to ungarble it and that will be in a half hour, and twenty minutes every time I want to stand in Committee. So either the No. 41 R2175

minister will listen ·garbled version, or he me the time to ungarble will take me a half hour. DR. COLLINS: to the will give it, which I did not interrupt your garbl~d speech, it was your own colleague. MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, when the minister stands up I also want him to deal specifically, and, I suppose, he could again say, Question Period, however, I want to know where the minister stands, and this question has been asked before with regard to labour legisla ·tion in this Province, on the right of the workers on the oil rigs to unionize. It is our position that the right is there.

It is up to them whether or not they want to unionize, but certainly they have the same rights as any other working group in this Province. The organizers, or the people who wish to offer union services to them, should have access to the work place, and should be able to have access to the workers, and the workers in the work place should have access to the organizers, or representatives of labour movements. He knows that is not so on oil rigs and he knows why it is not so.

So I want to ask the minister, not that I am asking him whether he is for or against unionization of the oil rig workers, that is not the issue, whether or not he is for the right of the workers on those rigs to have the same rights and the same access as people who work in other industries in Newfoundland? That is the issue, Mr. Speaker, not whether they should or should not. That is their decision whether they should or should not be unionized or organized.

But surely access L2176 June 27 , 1985 Vol XL should be made so they can make that decision. -·And to this point access has not been made, as a matter of fact, it has been denied. So, Mr. Speaker, in wanting to be very co-operative with here with the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) and help him get this place shutdown, as I know he wants to do, I will forego a lot of the other points I wanted to make. I do want the minister to take a minute to address himself to the labour situation with the Newfoundland a~d Labrador liquor employees and to the organization of workers on the rigs.

The member for Bonavista North (Mr. Lush) is right. This legislation is simply a case of government making sure that they carry the big stick. This government still intends to keep, Mr. Speaker, NAPE and 10,000 employees under their thumb. They will bring in nice wishy-washy , lukewarm, milky legislation, but that legislation still guarantees that the minister totally controls 10,000 of the NAPE workers in as far as having the power to declare them essential or inessential. And that very act, and that very ability renders the union useless. So, Mr.

Speaker, with that I want to associate myself with the comments made by the member for Bonavista North (Mr. Lush) and to add, yes, we will support the legislation. There is nothing here, Mr. Speaker, not to support it. And we are looking forward to the minister bringing in the enlightened legislation that will really help the labour movement in this Province, as opposed to what we are looking at here now, Mr. Speaker. DR. COLLINS: No. 41 R2176

:::1. Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Greening: The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, just a very brief word on this bill. I would like to bring up a point that I am surprised the members opposite had not brought up and, that is, the public servants in this Province, the public servants who serve this government and serve the people of this Province have performed manfully during the recent years of the recession. They had to withstand restraint measures, which I am sure none of them liked, certainly government did not like putting them on, but they were absolutely necessary.

And I think it ·tells a great deal for the public service of this Province that the vast, vast majority accepted them, not with happiness I reiterate, but without a murmur. They continued to do their duties fully, no working to rule or any of that sort of thing. They performed tremendously on behalf of the people of this Province and, I think, a great vote of thanks is due to the vast, vast bulk of workers in this Province for withstanding the vicissitudes of a recession and performing in the manner they did.

As I say, I am terribly surprised that hon. members opposite, who say they champion the labour movement so much, did not even turn their minds to complimenting the large number of workers in this Province and the large number of Newfoundlanders who perform so well on behalf of their follow Newfoundlanders, especially during times of restraint and financial problems. MR. BLANCHARD: L2177 June _ 27, 1985 Vol XL Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Greening): The hon. the Minister of Labour. If the minister speaks now he closes the debate. MR. BLANCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, I am sorry the hen. member for Bonavista North (Mr. Lush) is not in his seat to hear my remarks because I am led to think that he was so kind to me and so flowery about my Labour Relations Bill", Bill 14, he was very kind and complimentary about that. He told me how good it was, what a nice piece of legislation it was, and I am firmly led to believe that his leader must have rapped him on the knuckles because yesterday he was very uncomplimentary about this good bill, this Bill 15,

an act to amend and to straighten out some of the difficulties in the public service collective bargaining act. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonavista North had stated yesterday that, I think to use his expression, great oaks from little acorns grow. And I think he ought to remember that Rome was not made in a day.

It is going to take a little time to straighten out some of the things and a good attempt is being made here, a recognition by the government that there have been difficulties despite what the hon. member may think, there has been a great deal of difficulties with the designation of essential employees. There has been long drawn out court cases, Mr. Speaker, and the bill that I have before the House today is going to correct that. We have already said, 'Mr. Speaker, that there will be an ongoing No. 41 R2177

process of review. There will be consultation with- employer and union groups, Mr. Speaker. We intend to do this regularly, -look at the legislation. Maybe the hon. members opposite wanted us to do nothing. Let the thing go on and not do anything. AN HON. MEMBER : Mo re. MR. BLAN CHARD : We will do more when the time is right. I just told you we were going to review it from time to time. It is too bad the hon. member for Windsor - Buchans (Mr. Flig~

t) is not there because he talks about de-legislation. I know he is not happy about seeing the bill amended. They want to leave the bad legislation around if there are bad aspects to it so that he will have something to talk about. Do not wonder about it. Be asked me all kinds of questions during the estimates. I am going to give him a seminar when the time is right, when the Bouse settles down, I am going to take him over in the quietness of my office and give him a little seminar on labour legislation. He asked me a question about the oil rigs and if he looked at

Section 5 of the Labour Relations Act he would see that every employee has the right to be a member of a trade union and to participate in the activities of it. MR. TULK: Where is the province's organization then? MR. BLAN CHARD : Mr. Speaker, I do not want to waste the time of the House. We want to get on with other business. We have other good legislation. I just want to say that the bill that we have here L2178 June 27, 1985 Vol XL today is an excellent beginning._ . It is going to correct many of the difficulties, despite what the hon. member for Bonavista North (Mr. Lush) may think of it.

They may not beat their chest but they will be happy with this bill and it will allow them to get on with their business and allow the Labour Relations Board to get on with its business. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBER S: Hear, hear! on motion, a Amend The (Collective 1973", (Bill bill, "An Public Bargaining) No. 15), Act To Service Act, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently by leave. MR. MARSHALL: Order 6, Bill No. 2. Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Judicature Act" • (No • 2 ) MR. SPEAKER (Greening): The hon.

Minister of Justice. MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill on second reading. It is an amendment to the Judicature Act to increase the number of judges in the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of the Province from seven to eight which would provide for the Chief Justice of the Trial Division and in addition seven trial judges. Mr. Speaker, it just carne to my attention that this bill omits the usual provision that the amendment is to come into effect upon proclamation and I will be moving that kind of amendment in No. 41 R2178

Committee. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. member for Fortune Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say just a few words in support of the amendment. I do so particularly in behalf of my colleague who is the spokesman on this matter for the Opposition. He had to be absent temporarily from the House. We have had some discussions with the 'legal community in this Province on this issue and it appears that the minister is on the right track in addressing the rflork load of the court. We understand that . the work load is quite excessive.

This is a step in the direction of addressing that issue. I hope that, and we hope that, this ·measure will serve to expedite the cause of justice in the Province. So we, on this side, are very much for it. It is not our intention to hold up this bill, Mr. Speaker, but if the minister in closing the debate might - if I can get her attention - if she would be so kind as to address a couple of questions I want to put to her. One, when does she expect to see the appointment made, in broad time frame? Is it something that the government would urge the federal government to move on right away?

And, secondly, the issue of the workload of the District Court, that workload seems to be quite heavy and I was wondering if you are looking at the possibility of appointing an additional judge to the District Court? The message we keep getting is that the workload there is quite onerous L2179 June 27, 1985 Vol XL and that the scheduling of cases is quite heavy and it takes many months down the road to get a court date.

So those two particular questions are: When does she making the appointment that implicit in this amendment, and, secondly, will she just speak briefly to the issue of the need for another judge at the District Court level? MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER {Greening): The hen. the Minister of Justice. MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have discussed the matter of the amendment to the Judicature Act to enlarge the Supreme Court Trial Division with the increase of another judge with the federal Minister of Justice {Mr. Crosbie), who, of course, is also the Member of Parliament for St.

John's West Province's federal and our in the understand that representative Cabinet. I he fully appreciates the need for an additional Trial Division judge. He understands the pressures of work in that court and will be recommending to his colleagues in the federal Cabinet that somebody be appointed to fill this position as soon as possible.

In the case of the District Court, I remind bon. members that within the past year the District Courts Act was amended to provide for an additional District Court judge in Corner Brook and just last month the federal government appointed His Honour, Judge Fred Woolridge, who was sworn in in Corner Brook within the past two or three weeks, so that now there are two resident judges of the District No. 41 R2179

Court in Corner Brook. Mr. Speaker, I am aware that there are great pressures of work in the Distr:i.ct Court in St. John's now. Here in St. John's, there are three resident District Court judges including the Chief Judge of the District Court, His Honour, · Judge Adams. Mr. Speaker, I am pl-eased to -inform the House that the government has approved introducing to this Legislature a bill to further amend the District Courts Act to .provide for the further enlargement of the District Court of the Province with the addition of another District Court judge in St.

John's, which will bring to four the total number of District Court judges resident in St. John's. on motion, a bill, Amend The Judicature second time, ordered Committee of the presently by leave. "An Act To Act", read a referred to a Whole House {Bill No. 2) Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Provide For l;rbi trations". {Bill No. 3) MR. SPEAKER {Greening): The hen. Minister of Justice. MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to move second reading of this bill, "An Act To Provide For Arbitrations". Mr.

Speaker, currently legislation dealing with the procedure for arbitrations is contained in one part of the Judicature Act. Now just last Fall this Legislature passed a new Judicature Act which is to come into force on a date to be set by Cabinet. The new Judicature Act is minus the part on arbitrations, so this bill is put forward to L2180 June 27, 1985 Vol XL round out the ma·tters now dealt with in Judicature Act. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Tulk for judge. MS VERGE: which the are old Mr.

Speaker, that was the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs making yet another pitch for the appointment to the bench of the good member for Fogo {Mr. Tulk) • I will certainly be passing that on to the federal Minister of Justice. Mr. Speaker, this Arbitrations Bill sets out quite a complete procedure to be followed for arbitrating matters in dispute and provides for references of matters to arbitration through various means, through agreements, through directions in legislation and also through orders by courts. Mr.

Speaker, the final provision of the bill indicates that this act is to come into force on the same day that is set for the coming into force of the new Judicature Act since the two pieces of legislation are tied together and their coming into force should be synchronized. So, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill and would urge its speedy passage through this Legislature. MR. SPEAKER {Greening): The hen. member for Fortune Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, again in the absence of my colleague, the member for St. Barbe {Mr.

Furey) who is the spokesman on these matters for the Opposition, I have pleasure in rising and just saying a few words in response to what the minister No. 41 R2180

has just said in introducing the bill. This bill, as we understand it, would provide for a separate legislative mechanism to allow the courts to appoint arbitr~tors to look after particular areas of expertise such as insurance matters and engineering matters, areas of a highly technical nature, areas in particular where the court needs expert advise. MR. TULK: You are going to make recommendation, are you not? MS. VERGE: Of course. MR. TULK: that Then I may as well go on the bench. MR. SIMMONS: You are finished, are you? I would not want to interrupt you or anything like that. MR. TULK: No, I am finished. MR.

SIMMONS: All right. Or areas where the court perhaps needs some expert advise or input. I say to the minister that we have no particular problem with this legislation. I guess if we were to raise small concerns it would be that the bill needs to be amended so soon after it was legislated and indeed before it even comes into effect. MS VERGE: No, no. It is not amended, it is being added to it. MR. SIMMONS: It is being added to it, I understand that. It is an item that obviously was not addressed when the 1984 legislation was put before the 'House.

L2181 June 27, 1985 Vol XL HS VERGE: It was all planned and announced at the time. MR. SIMMONS: Sorry? MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Greening): The hon. Minister of Justice. MS VERGE: The government intended, and stated this intention at the time, that arbitrations be dealt with in a separate Statute from the main body of the Judicature Act. So this bill is consistent with what was put to the Legislature last Fall. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Fortune Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: I thank the minister. She corrects my assumption or, as it happened, wrong assumption.

Hy assumption had been that this was an oversight. She says notice was given for it at the time that it would be done this way. Perhaps in closing debate on the bill she would be good enough to tell us just why it had to be done this way, why it could not have been incorporated at the time the 1984 Judicature Act was put through the Chamber. MR. SPEAKER (Greening): The hon. the Minister of Justice. MS VERGE: Mr.

Speaker, this well could have been included in the new Judicature Act, but I think it was generally agreed by members of the Law Society, lawyers practicing in the Province, and others who have No. 41 R2181

had to deal with arbitration matters, that it would be preferable to separate out from the ~ain body of the Judicature Act, which i~ quite a large, bulky statute, the part dealing with . arbitrat"ion, and set it out in a separate act. That, indeed, is what we have done.

The new Judicature Act which was passed by this House of Assembly last Fall, just before Christmas, has not yet been proclaimed in force, and it is intended that that new Judicature Act, this new Arbitrations Act . and, . possibly, the new rules of cour~, although that could be dealt with separately, be proclaimed to take effect sometime later :th is year. More time has been allowed for members of the Law Society and others who have to deal with this legislation on a regular basis to thoroughly familiarize themselves with the new provisions. MR.

SIMMONS: I realized that you had two acts but I did not quite understand why it was thought important to have the arbitration issue in a separate act. MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, to repeat myself, it is really just a matter of administrative convenience to have the provisions parallel to those in the old Judicature Act dealing with arbitrations, statute. This in a separate bill on arbitrations is slim, it is compact. It contains, in the one small document, legislative provisions setting out an arbitrations procedure which is thought to be preferable to putting it in the large, bulky, cumbersome Judicature Act. MR.

SIMMONS : L2182 June 27, 1985 Vol XL Yes. MS VERGE: Whenever arbitrations are initiated and carried out, it is just that part of the Judicature Act dealing with arbitrations that has to be referred to, and it is a little bit inconvenient for people to have to drag around the whole large Judicature Act. It is preferable for them to be able to deal with just a compact act which isolates out the legislative provisions on arbitrations. So, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to conclude the debate on second reading of this Arbitrations Bill. Thank you.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Provide For Arbitrations," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently by leave. (Bill No. 3). DR. COLL INS: Order 19, Bill No. 16. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (G reeni ng): The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MAR SHALL : Mr. Speaker, if the hon. the minister would permit, because the member for Windsor - Buchans (Mr. Flight), who wishes to comment on that bill, is not here, perhaps we could defer it and call the next order, which is Order 22, Bill No. 22. MR . SPEAKER (Greenina): Order 22, Bill 22. MR.

MARSHALL: The member for Windsor - Buchans is up in the television room No. 41 R2182

commenting on statements that I made, so obviously he will only be up there for a very short period of time. Mr. Speaker, I introduce this bill on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Education (Mr. Hearn), who is not in his seat today because he had to be out on government business. The purpose of this amendment . is very simple. It is to serve two purposes. It is to exclude from school taxation residential property other than a person's principal residence, and this means that cottages and Summer cabins would be exempted.

Secondly, it excludes from taxation all buildings, other than residential, located on farm land. This will bring, Mr. Speaker, our school tax legislation in line with other municipal tax legislation and we wish to have this legislation passed as quickly as :Possible because it in vel ves a question of double taxation. The taxing of Summer cabins, which has caused some controversy over the last two or three years, was not really intended within the principles of the School Tax Act and that is the reason why we lead this particular amendment to that act. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hen. member for Fortune-Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: I would like to speak to this particular bill. I am glad the subject is the School Tax Act, and I wish it were

an act not to amend but to do away with it altogether. That would be in line L2183 June 27, 1985 Vol XL with long-standing Liberal policy on the issue and it would address a need in the Province. It would remove a lot of frustration, particularly among older people, but among many others who are not really , able to pay and do not understand, do not see the wisdom or the justice of the present system of taxation as it relates to schools. We live under a system which believes in drawing money from the Public Treasury for almost every purpose.

We do not have a health tax, a road tax, we do not have taxes that are targeted in terms of their ultimate use , we do not have a targeted use tax except in one instance, the School Tax. We do not tax health, we do not tax roads as such. We have various conventions of doing it indirectly by licencing of vehicles and issuing drivers licences and so on, but with those caveats we really do not have any targeted use tax other than the School Tax. And it raises al .l kinds of questions about fairness. Who should be paying?

Should it only be persons who have students in school, or those who will have them in school at a certain point in time who should pay? And I have long subscribed to the view that education, like transportation services, like health services, is just another service, an important one, mind you, but it is just another service which is provided out of public largess and, therefore, there ought not to be a particular school tax. We believe on this side of the House that it is wrong in principle, we believe that it is very unjust in the way it is implemented.

That is not to criticize the drafters of the legislation, or indeed this Legislature for the manner or the wording it adopted in the original No. 41 R2183

is one in the to assess School Tax Act. The issue of implicit unfairness whole business of trying and collect a school tax. And so, Mr. Speaker, the real solution to the problem before us is not to make small anendments - and I will speak directly to the amendments in a moment - because if something is blatantly, implicitly, inherently unfair, no number of amendments can really change that. If the whole system of taxation here is wrong and unjust, idiotic, then the only way to get rid of that idiocy, that unfairness is to do away with the system of school taxation itself. So, Mr.

Speaker, I say that we on this side would be much more comfortable today if we were speaking to a bill which proposed doing away altogether with that very unfair tax, that absolutely unjust tax. It is wrong in principle, it is wrong in terms of the system that we use for the collection of revenues to pay for public expenditures. If we want to pay for the construction of a hospital as taxpayers in this Province, we take it out of general revenue.

Those who administer the affairs of the Province obviously make the appropriate budgetary decisions, having in mind that they are going to find certain dollars for hospital construction in a particular year. But, Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the point is that the money for that hospital construction is taken from general revenue. It is not generated from any health tax, any particular tax targeted for health purposes. I could use other examples in other areas where government, on behalf of the people of a province or jurisdiction, provides certain L2184 June 27, 1985 Vol XL facilities, certain services.

In all cases but one the money comes out of general revenue, and so it should, but in this particular case :, for some reason, we insist on having a particular tax addressed to a particular purpose, targeted for use in school education matters at the local level. So, Mr. Speaker, because of the principle involved, I think we ought to be making a move much more decisive than is suggested in these amendments. We ought to be taking the position that was ar~iculated by the Liberal party during the election before the last provincial election.

We ought to take the position· in principle that we should do away with school taxes and allow these monies to come from general revenue. Let there be no doubt about it, Mr. Speaker, for the record, let us recognize that if we were to wipe out the school tax mechanism across this Province money would have to come from general revenue. MR. J. CARTER: The sales tax would have to go up. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from St. John's North (Mr. J. Carter) you cannot replace one unfairness with another unfairness. Even with the support of the gentleman from St.

John's North you cannot put the sales tax any higher. No. I say to him the solution is to do a bit of redistributing. This bill, and I will speak to it in a moment, talks about not taxing cottages. My question to the gentleman from St. John's North and the government generally is does this mean they will now be completely consistent and if they are not No. 41 R2184

going to tax cottages will they also agree not to pave roads ·to cottages? If he wants to know where to save a few bucks, I can take him to the Codroy Valley and I can show him where the government has been paving roads to cottages, always two or three weeks before an election, mind you. MR. J. CARTER: I can show him how to save money. Get rid of the Liberals on the other side of the Hou~e. MR. SIMMONS: Now, Mr. Speaker, it is truly, absolutely amazing. to be the eighth wonder world that a mouth could long with nothing atop forehead moving it. MR.

WARREN: really, It ha .s of the move so of the You are down in the gutter again. MR. TULK: That should go down as the profound statement of this Session. MR. WARREN: Yes. MR. SIMMONS: Some people go up in the mountains and come down with tablets of stone, others just come down stoned and walk across the floor. MR. TOBIN: Do not be talking about your leader like that. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, let it be understood that if we were to abolish the school tax mechanism the money would have to come out of general revenue. We believe that is where it should come from.

We point out also that the same people are paying the piper anyway, whether they pay him out of the left L2185 June 27, 1985 Vol XL pocket or the right pocket. The people, the taxpayers, whether they happen to be wearing hats as parents on one day and general taxpayers another day are paying the aggregate price for the services they get whether in education or health or road services or facilities or whatever. MR. DECKER: It has created another bureaucracy. MR. SIMMONS: In addition to all of that, as my good friend from the Strait of Belle Isle (Mr.

Decker) reminds us, they are also paying for another bureaucracy, another collection mechanism. I remember some years ago, when I was involved directly in education administration, looking at the figures that it cost to collect taxes through a local tax authority. The percentage of revenue that had to be appo!tioned to the actual collection of those revenues - I forget the figures now, Mr. Speaker, I would not want to talk off the top of my head in terms of the actual figures - was astronomically high.

If you take various funds such as Canadian Red Cross and other charitable funds; if you took the School Tax Authority, if you took the ratio that exists between the cost of collecting general taxation and the revenues generated, and we did all of this, we found that one of the most astronomically high figures was in respect to school taxation. To put it differently, Mr.

Speaker, apart from providing a job for the school tax administrator and his immediate staff, a secretary or so and apart from putting a few bucks in the local coffer, in terms of cost benefit, there was no real justification for doing it that way. You could put the same No. 41 R2185

amount of money into the school board coffer, indeed, a larger sum of money, at less cost if we centralized it and collect it the same as you collect taxes by which we build hospitals, taxes through which we build roads. So, Mr. Speaker, because it is inefficient, because it is unfair, because it is wrong in principle, we submit that the wrong bill is before us today. It ought not to be a bill to amend, it ought to be a bill to wipe out the school tax authority altogether. Wipe it out completely. Wipe it out. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SIMMONS: Now, Mr.

Speaker, I doubt that my admittedly persuasive argument will get every government member to fall into the line. I am sure they are committed, I am sure they got their instructions already from their leader, the gentlemap for St. John's East (Mr. Marshall). I am talking about their real leader now, the man who cracks the whip on that side, the gentleman for St. John's East. MR. DINN: He loves it when you say that. MR. SIMMONS: They have their instructions, Mr. Speaker, to brazen it out on this piece of legislation. We on this side of the House, Mr.

Speaker, have to operate within the realities, and the reality is that this piece of legislation is probably going to pass the House surprise, surprise! - so let us have a word on what it is they are doing. Mr. Speaker, they are time of this House L2186 June 27, 1985 taking the and the Vol XL drafters of the legislation to propose a couple of amendments.

Fairly small but fairly significant amendments, they will remove a certain unfairness and for that· reason we have no difficulty supporting the amendments, always with the caveat, always with the understanding that what we would much rather be doing today is wiping this thing, this disgraceful piece of legislation out of existence. But if it is going to stay, let us at least try and doctor it a bit to make it a little less unfair, however . miniscule that lessening of the unfairness might be. Let us do whatever we can to lessen the unfairness of this. particular piece of legislation.

The bill, the minister has indicated would exempt from taxation buildings that are not primary residences. Primary residences I think is the appropriate term. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to speak to this kind of bill, this kind of an amendment without alluding to waste in the name of patronage, in the name of keeping the troops in line, the kind of waste that goes on. Because, you see, Mr. Speaker, we would not need a school tax mechanism if there were better administration of the funds which are collected centrally to the Provincial government.

We would not need to be nickling and dimeing the older people of this Province to death. We would not need to be nickling and dimeing the poor people of this Province to death over a few bucks here and there, in relative terms, a few bucks through school tax authority. We would not need to nickel and dime them to death if there was a proper and fair administration of the funds that are collected centrally. And I No. 41 R2186

made a reference just now to that scandalous business out in the Codro;f Valley and in other parts of this Province where you go up to Lomond and you go down the road and you count two houses, I believe, and eight or ten cabins, and you drive over six miles of paved road. That is absolutely shameful. That is. pork barrelling at its worse. But it is worse than pork barrelling because ' de facto it is putting the cost of education on those older people and those poorer people.

The school boards out there have less money because the han. crowd over there are too busy doing their pork barrelling act every hour of the day. We heard recently about the salaries of the guys up in Goose Bay, Buchans and other parts of the country. Let . them do what everybody else has to do in this country who cannot get themselves elected, let them go out and look for a job like hundreds of my constit~ents are doing. Why should . they have an institutionalized committee called Cabinet look after their applications? Why should the rules be different for them? They took their chance.

They put their name on a ballot and the people made a decision. Now then, Mr. Speaker, let them do what everybody else in this country has to do, let them look for work. The gall, the absolute gall to come in here and preach to us about fairness and all that kind of nonsense!

Where is the fairness in the way this crowd administers the affairs of this Province, where, if you live in Fortune Bay, in Pool's Cove, you eat dust to get to a druggist in Harbour Breton or to get over the road to get your groceries, and not only eat dust but be assaulted L2187 June 27, 1985 Vol XL by promises on the airwaves about how the road is going to be done. Oh, you should have seen the Tory candidate last time. Was he busy! In English Harbour West on a Sunday afternoon promising that he had it on paper this time, the road was going to be done, all going to be paved. Well, you saw what Mr.

Crosbie signed on Monday. It is going to be paved all right but down in St. Shotts not in Pool's Cove. They have been misled and lied to so many times! So if you live in Pool's Cove year 'round, twelve months, you drive over a gravel path, not a road. But if you live in Lomond, if you are in the district of the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Dawe), you can drive on a paved road to your cabin. AN HON. MEMBER: What did Don Jamieson do when he was minister? MR. SIMMONS: Don Jamieson never paved any roads to cabins when he was minister. Don Jamieson put the Harbour Arterial Road in St.

John's and even with your sense of geography that is not in Burin - St. George's. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. TOBIN: The Minister of also put a bridge Valley. Transportation in the Codroy MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! Order, please! MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transportation did nothing of the sort. The federal government, under the emergency assistance No. 41 R2187

programme, put the bridge in the Codroy Valley. Now the gentleman for ~urin - Placentia West (Mr. Tobin) maybe engaging in newsspeak and he might be spitting out the line he has been taught to say, but it is not the truth. The truth is that the federal government ·paid, I forget · the figure, 75 to 80 per cent of the cost of that particular structure under the emergency funding provisions. MR. TOBIN: I know all about it. MR. SIMMONS: I doubt that the han. gentleman knows all about it if he alleges that the gentleman from Codroy Valley, from St. George's found the money for the bridge. He did nothing of the sort.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I tell him that the whole process initiated, got underway in a discussion with myself and a civil servant. The Province had neglected to even make application for it. They did not even realize they could do it, they were so busy rowing with Ottawa like they were leaving money on the table in every pther direction, they left the money there on the table until a federal bureaucrat tipped them off as to what they should be doing, if you want to know how it happened. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I know this is a sensitive area for the, not the pork barrellers - notice the money did not go in their ridings, the road money - they are not even pork barrellers, they are not even beneficiaries of pork barrelling, they silently acquiesce. They have to go along with it, swallow and go along with it because if you cross the floor you can hardly come back again even if you want to, even if you were wanted. You L2188 June 27, 1985 Vol XL can hardly come back again. So you silently acquiesce. Now you swallow hard no matter what they do.

So they put all their road money up in Crosbie's riding . and you silen ·tly acquiesce. You maintain a front, · you -pretend that everything is okay, and inside you have having four kinds of ulcers because you know what you did was dastardly and wrong. MR. MAR SHAL L: (Inaudible) school tax. MR. SIMM ONS: The gentleman for St. (Mr. Marsha ll) wants about the school tax. John's East me to talk SOME HON . MEMBER S: Oh, oh! MR. SIMM ONS: I am trying to get a word in about school taxes. MR. MARSHALL: You sit down and I will agree with you. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Will you abolish the school tax? MR.

SIMMONS: I know the member for St. John's East has his humble moments. They are few and they are far between, but he has his genuine humble moments, his truthful moments, and in his heart of hearts he knows that this school tax is wrong. But ~,.;rhat was getting me - MR. W. CARTER: He agreed to the abolition. MR. SIMMON S: Who has the floor, Mr. Speaker? Would you tell me who has the floor so I can get on with this? I would like to yield to the eloquence of the gentleman for No. 41 R2188

Torngat Mountains, actually. MR. WARREN: No, you carry on. MR. SIMMONS: Mr.

Speaker, one cannot help but get a bit excited about this whole school tax business, because when you see the almost cosmetic nature of what we are being asked to do, significant in the sense that it will remove one little bit of unfairness, but in terms of the overall unfairness of this act, it is nothing more than cosmetic, and when you see that, ·When you put that in contrast to the pork barrelling, the looking after political hacks who have been rejected,· Tory rejects, people who have been rejected by the population · out there, and, yet, that same population have to pay their salary bill ad nauseam.

It is a shame! It is a crime! It is a disgrace! Then on top of that, when you have all this newspeak from the gentleman for Burin Placentia West (Mr. Tobin), apart from all the other th,ings he knows, he also knows how the bridge went over in Codroy. Yes, sure! What a walking encyclopedia! What did the people of Burin Placentia West do to deserve this great paragon of knowledge and virtue? The bridge he knows about now! He knows as much about the bridge as he knows about most matters down in his district. MR. TOBIN: I got elected in my district twice. MR. WARREN: That is right. MR. SIMMONS: Mr.

Speaker, I think we are awa:re that he got elected. He is sitting in the House and that must L2189 June 27, 1985 Vol XL mean something. We respect the voters who sent him here, we respect his right to be here.

We are not like the crowd over there who taik out of both sides of their faces; if their guys get elected they thank the electorate, and, if they do not get elected, they mock the electorate and go and appoint them anyway. ' We respect the voters of Burin Placentia West, we respect his right to be here, but that does not mean to say that he can unload his bile and his misinformation on this House and get away with it. MR. WARREN: How about the voters in Torngat Mountains? AN HON. MEMBER: Motor mouth is going again. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Motor mouth. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! Order, please! MR.

SIMMONS: The voters in Torngat Mountains made a wise decision, 45 per cent of them did. MR. WARREN: Thank you. MR. SIMMONS: 45 per cent of them made a wise decision. MR. WARREN: 46 per cent. MR. SIMMONS: 46 per cent. Is that your percentage or the other fellow's? MR. WARREN: That is my percentage. MR. SIMMONS: No. 41 R2189

That is what I am saying, that these made a wise decision. Mr. Speaker, we would like to have had the gentleman who ran for the Liberal Party, Mr . Woodward, here, but second to that, we are glad that we have here sitting in front of us all the time, this particular example, an example of what not to do in politics. And he serves us a purpose, he does us favours just by coming int o the ~ou se every particular day with his little interjections, these intellectually loaded barbs that he gives us from time to time with great eloquence. MR. WARREN: (Inaudible) book. MR. SIMMONS: What was the book, though. MR.

WARREN : (Inaudible) MR. SIMMONS: He is using it well. I knew I recognized that great wit, that great int ellect from somewhere. So every time he comes here, Mr. Speaker, he does all Qf us a favour be cause he reminds us of what not to do in politics, what not to be in politics. In

summary, Mr. Speaker, just let me say that the solution to the school tax issue is to do away with it altogether. In the absence of that, let us get on with those amendments so that we can get on to some more legislation ... SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker. L2190 June 27, 1985 Vol XL MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. Presiden 't of the Council. MR. MARS HALL : Mr. Speaker, just a few words in closing the debate. I agree entirely with what the hon. member has said.

The purpose is not just to abolish school tax as far as this government is concerned but to abolish all taxes, all taxes completely, forever and a day . If we are in power long enough, Mr. Speaker, as I expect we will, we will do that and it will even get the most dyed-in-the-wool, the most interred, vilest, Liberal that exists, like the· hon. gentleman, even the hon. gentleman as a dyed-in-the-'fmol Liberal will get up and sing our praises at that point in time.

But in the meantime, we are left to the resources we have and because of our tender financial position, of merely removing the double taxation which occurs which we have done in this bill. In closing, there is just one other little comment I would like put on the record. Unfortunately, he is not here, but I would like to comment on something about this bill with respect to the member for Menihek (Mr Fenwick) because there have been representations made with respect to the passage of this bill by various people who have an interest.

Sometimes they write letters to the Government House Leader with respect to the passage of it. So this lady wrote to me and asked, with respect to the passage of the bill, and I replied to her. She also wrote to the hon. member for Menihek (Mr. Fenwick) and I was amused with the answer that the hon. member for Menihek wrote. He wrote her a very nice polite letter and he courteously gave me a copy of it in which he talked about the fact No. 41 R2190

that this bill was not far enough and what have you. But the big objection he has, and get this, Mr.Speaker, was that it was not retroactive. That is the truth. I have the letter and when we resume in the Fall I will table it. His big complaint to the lady was the fact that this bill was not retroactive three or four years ago. When I saw it, I thought I would fall off my chair when I remembered the fuss he kicked up about another bill that was retroactive. So I want to put that on the record of the House and I move second reading of the bill, Mr.

Speaker~ On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amen~ The Local School Tax Act, " read a second time, referred to a Committee ~fuole House on tomorrow. No. 22). MR. MARSHALL: Order 19 Bill No. 16 ordered of the (Bill Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation 1951." (Bill No. 16). MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Act, Before recognizing the hon. Minister of Mines and Energy (Mr. Dinn), I would like to mention that there is one question to be raised at the adjournment and it is a question to the Premier from the hon. member for Twillingate (Mr. W.

Carter) about the promised senior citizens home in Twillingate. The hon. Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 16 is a relatively minor piece of legislation. Basically, the L2191 June 27, 1985 Vol XL Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation Limited Act was passed in 1~51 and in 1978 we passed the Mineral Impost Act, which basically took back most of the lands that were given to NALCO at the time. All of the lands have returned to the Crown now except for three square miles.

These three square mi~es is land that has been explored by NORANDA, under concession from NALCO and they have spent a lot money on this land. Basically, what we are doing here relates to two options that NORANDA had. One option was to take out a mining lease, which would give them several years to explore some more, but we have agreed with them that we would make an amendment to the NALCO bill or act so the concessions that they have near Point Leamington they can work there and explore there fo~ the next few years. The original concessions in the NALCO Act were something like 21,900 square miles of the Province.

It is down now to three which we are providing for under this act to NO RANDA so that they can continue And that is Speaker. MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker. their exploration. basically it, Mr. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. member for Windsor Buchans. MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I concur with the minister that it is a very minor piece of legislature, a very minor amendment. It takes care of a very major problem though. Mr. Speaker, there are a few things I want the minister to address himself to when he stands to close the debate. He indicated we passed the Mineral Impost Act No. 41 R2191

on December 1978 and, subsequently, all the concessions held by NALCO reverted back to the Crown, I would presume, but it ·took until 1985. Why would it have taken until 1985? There was land surrendered in December 1978, December 1979, December, '80, December '81, '82, '83, '84, the area expired in March of 1985, the legislation· or the agreement, the NALCO agreement, and this I suppose in a sense is retroactive legislation. I understand what the minister has set out to accomplish here. We have no problem with that, we will support this piece of legislation.

NORANDA has been a good corporate citizen in this Province, Mr. Speake~. The area I represent has great hopes pinned on NORANDA because of the Tally Pond deposit and other deposits that NORANDA has been · exploring over the years and all have great potential given the right market conditions and given the right support by government and other agencies. So we have no problem with supporting this legislation.

The deposit referred to that NORANDA is \\'orking is in the Point Leamington area and, of course, based on what I read here, market conditions and what have you will play a great role in determining whether or not that ever becomes a mine as such. Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things I want to allude to. I hope that if NORANDA brings a mine in as a result of this legislation, that NORANDA is informed that we are not going to have any more Buchanses, Baie Vertes, St. Lawrences, Tilt Coves, and Li:ttle Harbours in Newfoundland. While the Premier is in his seat I wonder, Mr.

Speaker, because it is in keeping L2192 June 27, 1985 Vol XL with the subject, why it is and how it is that the Government of Newfoundland chose to ignore, to actually insult all the people who represent single industry towns in this Province by not having the decency_ to have one minister at that conference. The Minister of Fisheries had people att:ending that seminar in Buchans. That seminar was not held for Buchans. It was topical that it was held in Buchans because it focused attention on the Buchans situation right now.

But members over there, members over here, had delegations into that seminar to talk about what would happen when the Baie Verte mine closed. Yet the Government of Newfoundland chose not to have one representative. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Blanchard) was scheduled to speak, cancelled out, the present Minister of Mines and Energy (Mr. Dinn) was scheduled to speak, cancelled out. The Premier did not see fit, Mr. Speaker, to have one member of his government represented. So, Mr. Speaker, it fell to a deputy minister. Thank God for Mr. McKillop who came in and tried to save the day and defleqt the questions. Mr.

Speaker, members from all over the riding, the bon. member for Baie Verte - White Bay (Mr. Rideout) will get a chance when he goes back to Baie Verte to tell some of his people why it was that his government chose to ignore the concerns and the fears. MR. TULK: And he headed committee on one did he not? MR. FLIGHT: up a select industry towns, Sure, the member headed up on a select committee. MR. RIDEOUT: No. 41 R2192

Not on one industry towns. MR. TULK: No, on mining towns. MR. FLIGHT: So, Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister speaking on behalf of the Premier will tell us why he chose to insult the people who were in Buchans that weekend making their case for one industry towns. MR. SIM."iS: (Inaudible). MR. FLIGHT: This may be the bill, Mr. Speaker. If the member for Grand Falls (Mr. Simms) is not prepared to let me make my few comments then, this may be the bill that we hang her down on. Mr.

Speaker, I would want to say to the minister an issue of very great concern coming out of that seminar was that when mining companies, such as NORANDA, goes into an area of Newfoundland and starts a mine - and we have the Sinq Cerf thing coming up, we have the Sinq Cerf deposit that hopefully will deposit into a mine - that they accept responsibility for what will happen to that community based on an industry that was really meant, as far as they are concerned, to make profit. Their only motivation, Mr. Speaker, will be the profit their shareholders make.

There will be some wages paid over the years to the people who work there but, suddenly, the mine is gone, their holes are in the ground, and suddenly there is 100 per cent unemployment, a town with no basis of economy, no provisions made to soften the impact when that industry goes down. Mr.

Speaker, I would hope the L2193 June 27, 1985 Vol XL minister when he stands now will tell us that it is his policy and that he will ~e talking to the NORANDAS of the world, that henceforth in Newfoundland there will be no one industry towns set up unless the companies concerned take some responsibility for the diversification of the economy of that area and make some plans so that the people in the mining towns are not left with nothing except holes in the ground and the mining company is long gone and they are sitting there with no economy, looking at a welfare situation from there . on in. Mr.

Speaker, it has been a great problem, it has been a legacy in Newfoundland, mine after mine after mine have closed in this Province and when the mine closed there was nothing. The company had never given any thought to what would happen when they were ready to pull out. Obviously, the companies will do what they can get away with. It is up to the minister to lay down the conditions that mining ~ompanies establish in this town.. It may not be too late for the minister to have some talks with roc and with Pickands Mather and with the companies responsible for mining in Labrador West because, Mr.

Speaker, I listened to people from those communities this weekend, talking about putting time limits - and they were people from the area with responsibilities for Labrador West and Wabush - putting time limits and recognizing the problems they are going to be faced with if and when those mines close. So maybe the minister has already accepted that responsibility and is providing leadership. Maybe those companies are funding . a depletion allowance so that there will be some monies around when No. 41 R2193

the mining company operation winds down, to provide an infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, to help establish an economy that allows the community to continue on and be a viable community. So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope the minister would spend a word or two on that. I wonder about the Abitibi-Frice situation in the mining industry in this Province. We all know that Abitibi-Price has got their concessions on the block for sale. For anyone who wants to buy all the mining concessions in Newfoundland, they are on the block. Abitibi-Price no longer wants to mine in Newfoundland. MR. TULK: Even the Tulk's deposit? MR.

FLIGHT: Everything is up. The Tulk' s deposit, the Tally Pond deposit. All the lands held by Abitibi-Price is available on the auction block today including the Buchans property, including the Tally Pond property, including the Tulk's Pond pr operty, including Halfway Mountain , all designated ore bodies. What is the situation, Mr. Minister, with the Abitibi-Price deal? Does this mean Abitibi-Price will continue to operate their logging operation in Newfoundland and their paper mills and make a lot of money in the process, but they have already made a lot of money.

Abitibi-Price, the old A and D Company, owned 51 per cent of the Buchans operation . They took million s and millions and millions of dollars out of that operation. They took more money than ASARCO took out. The old Anglo Newfoundland Company, and later Price Newfoundland, and presently Abitibi-Price, fo r the last fifty L2194 June 27, 1985 Vol XL years took millions and millions of dollars out of that mine and maybe out of other mining operations in Newfoundland, but specifically that one. I am wondering, Mr.

Speaker, if in the sale of this property now Abitibi-Price believes that they are washing their hands of any responsibility to the community and to the people who made fortunes for them over the years in Buchans? I wonder will .Abitibi-Price be prepared to accept their corporate responsibility and their moral responsibility to the people in Buchans?

As they continue to make millions off our forestry resources, will they put some of that money into Buchans and will they continue to meet their responsibility to the people in Buchans, the people who, over the years, they made millions and millions off or is there a possibility that the reason Abi·tibi-Price is now willing to sell their mineral concessions in Newfoundland is maybe to avoid, as we get down the road and try to determine who is responsible for what, they know there is no more money to be made in Buchans, it is all over, so they sell off their mineral concessions and thereby relinquish any responsibility they would have to the people of Buchans.

Mr. Speaker, I see the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Doyle) waving his hand. MR. TULK: What does he want to get out of here? MR. FLIGHT: +"his could be the bill that keeps us here until Wednesday, Mr. Speaker. No. 41 R2194

MR. TULK: Wednesday?- · July 15. AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, by leave. MR. TULK: By leave? He does not need leave. He got an hour. MR. PATTERSON: Wonderful · speech. MR. TULK: No ·, no. He is not finished. MR. FLIGHT: I have some very copious notes here, Mr. Speaker. There is a point or two I do wish to make, Mr. Speaker, and I will have to be forgiven while I find my briefing notes. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I remember what I am looking for.

During the years from 1978 to 1985 NALCO turned back to the Province the bulk, actually all, of the lands they had under concession, except for the three square miles that now applies to this concession. This bill is being brought in to accommodate NORANDA, as it should be, there is no question about that. I am wondering what happened. Was there joint ventures involved in the other concessions, in the lands that NALCO turned back to the Province from 1975 to 1984?

Would there have been joint ventures where other companies such as NORANDA involved with NALCO in the explorations and if so why did we not do the same thing we are doing here? Was there any request made by NALCO or by a joint venture or is this request specific as a result of the Point Leamington deposit? So the minister might want to answer that. L2195 June 27, 1985 Vol XL So, Mr. Speaker, there are a few things I want the minister to address himself to. The Premier has left. I want him to tell us why that he chose not to be present himself. He was due there.

He was supposed to be there, the boom or bust seminar in Buchans. I can tell the minister that His Excellency, Bishop MacDonald expressed his concern that no government representation was there. All the labour leaders from all over the Province expressed their concern that no government . officials were there. They were totally ignored, representatives of fifteen communi ties i"n Newfoundland, people representing every single industry town in Newfoundland there, totally and completely ignored, callously ignored by this government. You talk about shirking responsibility! MR.

TULK: If you keep on the answer is going to be too long to send to your constituents. MR. FLIGHT: So I would want the minister to address himself and maybe he will give us an acceptable explanation as to why none of the ministry chose to be there and maybe he would go further and make a statement and apologize to the people of Buchans and to the sponsors of that seminar and hold out some hope that he has concern for towns whose economy is based on a single industry, specifically mining.

I am sure if he would people would feel better about it and maybe forgive him for the callousness and the total disregard he showed for their feelings, Mr. Speaker. So having made those few points, Mr. Speaker, I again concur with No. 41 R2195

the minister simple bill. purpose . and bill. that it is a It serves a we will support MR. SPEAKER (McNich ola s): very good the If the hen. minister speaks now he closes the debate. The hen. Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I will deal with every question the hen. member asked, but if I do not, we can possibly do it in committee.

Basically he says here, nWhy has it taken so long for all the lands that NALCO had to come back to the Crown? n • Well, under the Mineral Impost Act the hen. member will know that if a company, whether it is joint ventured or not, and in this case it was, the NORANDA - NALCO joint venture in the Point Leamington area, if they spend a certain amount of money in exploration on a per year basis, then they own that concession. So they could have hung on to the concession for basically as long as they wanted to.

And in this case, as this was expiring on March 31st. , then NORANDA had two choices: Number one, they could have taken out a mining lease and that would have given them two years to do their thing. They indicated to us that they required more time than that and they would like to have it done this way. So we indicated to them, 'no problem, you have been a good corporate citizen, you have done the work that you said you were going to do and you are going to continue your exploration programme so there is no problem. We will do what you request.' That is number one. So I hope that answers the hen.

L2196 June 27, 1985 Vol XL member's question. With respect to t.he meeting Buchans on one industry towns, member may or may not know, the department was requested send officials. We did send Deputy Minister of Mines severa l officials to in the but to the and that conference. I was never asked to the conference. There was never a request came to me, even though I did read somewhere, in the papers or somewhere, that I was supposed to be there and did not show up. I was never off'icially asked.

What happened was a couple of days prior to the conference, I believe one of the ministers who were supposed to attend, could not attend and asked · me to attend and I just said that I could not because it just did not fit my schedule. I can assure the hen. member that if I had been asked and given some lead time, then I would have gone to Buchans. There is no question about that. I do not know why other ministers did not attend or whether they were asked or not, but I am giving the member my side of the story.

But I did send my Deputy Minister and several officials out there and they have put a report together for me and they indicate to me that their report will be on my desk when I get back from the Housing Ministers Conference in Calgary. MR. RI DEOUT : I was not checked. MR. DINN: invited. You were not invited? MR. RI DEOUT : No. MR. DINN: I just The hen. member for Baie Verte was No. 41 R2196

not in vi ted. So I do not really know what happened here. There might have been a breakdown in communications. The bon. member may have gotten misinformed, but the fact of the matter, is I was not invi,ted. So, Mr. Speaker, the hen. member said that he hopes that if SELCO or NORANDA move in and actually develop a mine that it will not be another Buchans. Well, these are very difficult things_, but we can assure the hen. member that we will do anything that we can, do, everything within our power to do, to make sure that we do not have another situation as occurred in Buchans.

But I do not give up on Buchans as quickly as the hen. member said. The hen. member said in his few remarks that Buchans is no more, there is no more money to be made in Buchans. MR. FLIGHT: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! A point of order, the bon. member for Windsor - Buchans. MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I just want to set the record straight for the minister. I have toiled ceaselessly for the past twenty, twenty-five years for Buchans. I have not given up on Buchans. I still maintain my horne there and I will live there again and I will continue for the next five years.

I have not given up. I have simply said to him, the mine is closed, there are two employees, the mining industry as we ·know it is no more, there is no economy and the member for Baie Verte (Mr. Rideout) and the Premier (Mr. Peckford) should have been in to L2197 June 27, 1985 Vol XL that seminar to find out exactly what is going on and they would not have ~ad - to depend on this member to tell them what is happening in Buchans. Z.ffi. SPEAKER: Order, please! There is no point of order. The bon. Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. DINN: Mr.

Speaker, if the bon. member had waited until I had finished, what I had continued to say, was that with respect to the fact that Abitibi has their concessions available for anybody who is interested in them, I am very hopeful that mining interests take up the cudgel with respect to Buchans and that they do a good exploration programme, find something in there and that we get back to mining in Buchans because that is what the people, I believe, would like to see happen, either in Buchans or in the vicinity of Buchans we do find something and that we do develop another mining operation there.

This amendment is basically for NORANDA because that is the only one left now on the concessions owned by NALCO, that is the only area left now that is of interest to a company who had concessions or who had a joint venture with NALCO to do exploration. They have indicated to us that they are getting into some more diamond drilling this year and, hopefully, down the road that will turn out to be a good prospect and a mine. We will make sure that we take the kinds of percautions in the Point Lernington area, if all these things work out, to make sure that we do not indeed have another Buchans. No. 41 R2197

Mr. Speaker, second reading. with that I move On motion, a Amend The bill, "An Act To Newfoundland And Labrador Corporation Act, read a second time, referred to a Committee vfuole House presently by (Bill No. 20). 1951", ordered of the leave. Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend Certain Acts Having Regard To The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms". (Bill No. 1). MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas)·: The hon. the Minister of Justice. MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to speak on this bill which contains seventy-three amendments to the Statute Law of our Province to ensure compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Mr. Speaker, I just want to give a little bit of background on the Charter. The Charter as contained in part one of the Constitution Act, 1982. And

Section 52 (1) of that act declares that 'the Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada and any law that is inconsistent with the provision of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force and effect.' Now, Mr. Speaker, the Charter, which I am holding in my hand, guarantees certain rights and freedoms which are enumerated in that in that document. All of the Charter, with the exception of

Section 15 setting out equality rights, became effective on April 17, 1982, three years ago. L2198 June 27, 1985 Vol XL

Section 15 took effect April 17 of this year. Mr. Speaker,

Section 15 is, perhaps, the most significant provision of the Charter. I would like to quote it in its entirety, that is,

Section 15 subsection ( 1) 'Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to be equal protection and equal benefit of the law wi .thout discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.' Mr.. Speaker, those equality rights, particularly, the explicit right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex, was a constitutional right long sought by women's groups across Canada and it was a major victory for feminists in this country that that provision is now enshrined in our constitution. Mr. Speaker, the whole Charter begins with

Section 1, which guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstratively justified in a free and democratic society. So, Mr. Speaker, these are the key provisions of the Charter. The Constitution Act containing the Charter establishes that the court may now strike down the provisions of any legislation passed by this Legislature or any other provincial legislature in the country, as well as the federal Parliament, which the judges decide are inconsistent with the Charter or which are at odds with any part of the constitution. Mr. Speaker, this is significantly No. 41 R2198

different from the Bill of Rights, which was in effect from 1960 until the time of the coming into force of the Constitution Act, the Bill of Rights having been simply a Statute of the Parliament of Canada which could have been amended by the federal Parliament at any time, and which applied only to federal laws,

whereas, of course, t